If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have no intention of discussing the particular case that sparked this discussion but I find the concepts interesting. While it is obvious that SYG laws can allow people to easily get away with murder, which is terrible, I have to say that deep down the concept of SYG really resonates with me.

It is my understanding that self-defence laws often require you to attempt to flee before being allowed to actually defend yourself. Why should you have to do that? If someone is attacking you why should you have to waste precious time and concentration trying to run away? If you are a victim of an attack you should be able to defend yourself immediately.

Judging what level of defence is appropriate is tricky. If someone runs up to me and starts punching me why should I be limited to defending myself in a similar way? He has no right to be attacking me. Sure, I could try to fend him off with my own bare hands, but I have no idea what this violent attacker will do next. Is he going to pull a weapon? Will he curb-stomp my face into a pulp if I fall to the ground? Why should I have to risk finding out? Why should I have to wait? I am the victim here. He attacked me. Why shouldn't I just blow his head off and be on the safe side?

Most people seem to agree the result of the particular case that sparked this discussion was legally justifiable and that the law itself is the problem. This is why I don't wish to discuss that actual case. And I accept that SYG laws have problems. But I would really like someone to explain to me why the well-being of someone who is physically attacking me should ever be my concern or responsibility.

I'm genuinely interested in the discussion and am absolutely willing to change my opinion if presented with a really good argument.

I guess I believe in trying to squash problems without violence whenever possible. If there's really no other way, then sometimes it might be necessary to use deadly force... but all a person has to do is imagine they are in danger in order to "stand their ground". Not too long ago, a guy from Turkey approached me at night at a bus stop and was very rapey, from my perspective. I remained calm and somewhat kind, while showing my discomfort. I definitely felt like I was in danger. In the end, he left. Because I felt like I was in danger of being raped (which very well might have happened had I reacted differently), should I have been able to use lethal force if I'd been so inclined? I don't think so. I FELT like I was in danger, but I surely do not believe I had PROOF that I was in danger, and it turns out I was fine. I can't imagine killing someone because I feel like I'm in danger. It is far too subjective and arbitrary.

Plus there are plenty of people out there who actually wait for something to happen so that they can use their guns. It encourages unnecessary violence. If Zimmerman really was being attacked, if he'd used a taser or mace, it would've done the trick just fine. And that's generally the case.

*By rapey, I mean he was sitting closer and closer to me on the bench as I scooted away, grabbing my hand and arm, putting his hand in my hair, and after I told him I would NOT give him a kiss, he grabbed me and kissed me on the cheek and didn't let me go for what felt like a full minute, but was probably like 15 seconds. All of this happening at a bus stop at night with literally nobody around. And he wasn't waiting for the bus, either.

Ok...insane to MOTO translation. In other words, write it how you speak.

lol. I always just assumed that "insane" and "MOTO" were the same language. But since you asked. (And for the record, I do type how I speak; it's your job to learn the language properly~)

I find it telling that a concerning majority of those who defend Zimmerman's actions as "legal and therefore morally correct" are also the same people who normally get very upset at the idea of the government doing certain things (such as food stamps, welfare, etc.), even though those things are certainly legal (and therefore, by the same logic, also perfectly moral and correct). I've seen you argue against those programs on this very board in the recent past. My question is, which is it? Is the government always right, to the extent that the judicial system's rule is equivalent to morality? Or are there times when unethical things happen even though the system does its job?

In case that was too complicated for you; as I've said before, what is legal is not the same thing as what is ethical. George Zimmerman was not guilty of the criminal charges filed against him; that doesn't mean he wasn't a titanic asshole for instigating a chase that resulted in him killing a kid that would have otherwise posed no harm to himself or anyone else.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

lol. I always just assumed that "insane" and "MOTO" were the same language. But since you asked. (And for the record, I do type how I speak; it's your job to learn the language properly~)

I find it telling that a concerning majority of those who defend Zimmerman's actions as "legal and therefore morally correct" are also the same people who normally get very upset at the idea of the government doing certain things (such as food stamps, welfare, etc.), even though those things are certainly legal (and therefore, by the same logic, also perfectly moral and correct). I've seen you argue against those programs on this very board in the recent past. My question is, which is it? Is the government always right, to the extent that the judicial system's rule is equivalent to morality? Or are there times when unethical things happen even though the system does its job?

In case that was too complicated for you; as I've said before, what is legal is not the same thing as what is ethical. George Zimmerman was not guilty of the criminal charges filed against him; that doesn't mean he wasn't a titanic asshole for instigating a chase that resulted in him killing a kid that would have otherwise posed no harm to himself or anyone else.

First off, calling me insane is not very nice.. Sooooo, fugu.

Seconleeeee, don't try to compare the political game of buying fucking votes through the wholesale distribution of taxpayer dollars with someone who defended himself in an attack. Comparing pickles and peanuts. It is true that everything that is legal may or may not be morally or ethically correct. I get it. I have said before, GZ did nothing wrong. Unfortunate that someone died, but he did nothing wrong based on the evidence. Which is 100% of what we have to go on. Anything else...anything else, is pure bullshit. The state of Fla, and the retard in charge SA Corey, who by all accounts is an unmitigated idiot, could prove nothing. ZERO. It wasn't even close to a conviction. There was literally no basis for a trial. And....she is in deep shit.

Seconleeeee, don't try to compare the political game of buying fucking votes through the wholesale distribution of taxpayer dollars with someone who defended himself in an attack. Comparing pickles and peanuts. It is true that everything that is legal may or may not be morally or ethically correct. I get it. I have said before, GZ did nothing wrong. Unfortunate that someone died, but he did nothing wrong based on the evidence. Which is 100% of what we have to go on. Anything else...anything else, is pure bullshit. The state of Fla, and the retard in charge SA Corey, who by all accounts is an unmitigated idiot, could prove nothing. ZERO. It wasn't even close to a conviction. There was literally no basis for a trial. And....she is in deep shit.

If you recall correctly, you're the first one who threw that word out. I just hit it back to you~

"Buying votes" by giving people what they need, what will help them. I remember when we used to call that "giving a shit about your constituents." lol.

And once again, you're wrong. He did nothing *illegal* based on the evidence. What he did *wrong* was to pursue an innocent kid, after being told not to, and with no reasonable cause to suspect him of a crime (if "looking suspicious" is a crime, then there needs to be a strict legal definition of what "looking suspicious" entails, or else anyone can just claim that they "got a feeling," or "god told them it was suspicious," or what-have-you, and we could literally just fabricate definitions out of thin air to suit our purposes). If he hadn't done that, then "self-defense" wouldn't have been necessary in the first place and this would've been a moot discussion.

I don't know much about the finer details of the prosecution, but from what little I've read, the prosecution was definitely lacking. That said, I think the real enemy in this case is the stand your ground law, which is the only reason he got off the way he did. In any other state, he would've at LEAST gotten manslaughter.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."

If you recall correctly, you're the first one who threw that word out. I just hit it back to you~

"Buying votes" by giving people what they need, what will help them. I remember when we used to call that "giving a shit about your constituents." lol.

And once again, you're wrong. He did nothing *illegal* based on the evidence. What he did *wrong* was to pursue an innocent kid, after being told not to, and with no reasonable cause to suspect him of a crime (if "looking suspicious" is a crime, then there needs to be a strict legal definition of what "looking suspicious" entails, or else anyone can just claim that they "got a feeling," or "god told them it was suspicious," or what-have-you, and we could literally just fabricate definitions out of thin air to suit our purposes). If he hadn't done that, then "self-defense" wouldn't have been necessary in the first place and this would've been a moot discussion.

I don't know much about the finer details of the prosecution, but from what little I've read, the prosecution was definitely lacking. That said, I think the real enemy in this case is the stand your ground law, which is the only reason he got off the way he did. In any other state, he would've at LEAST gotten manslaughter.

Ok...here we go again. I'll be brief tho. First, welfare is about buying votes. It goes no farther than that. Plus, poor people living off the taxpayer do not need, nor deserve, cel phones, air conditioning, free clothes...etc... fuck them, get off your fat fucking ass and get these luxuries yourself you free-loading sack of whale shit. The ONLY insurance they should get is MAJOR MEDICAL. All else, get it yourself...or don't.

TM looked suspicious. Crimes were being committed in the area. That's why GZ was patrolling. Like a lot of young black males, they want to look all cool, gangster and hard. Not my fault he looked like a gangster. He didn't have to fight with GZ, but he did now didn't he. Plus, he was no little angel. Skittles and all not withstanding, I eat skittles and I'm an asshole. So I just proved Skittles are no reason to presume automatic innosence to any situation.

This is one of the best debates I've seen in ages. Good work MOTO and Static, and nice job keeping it fairly respectful of each other. I'm impressed.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks

Ok...here we go again. I'll be brief tho. First, welfare is about buying votes. It goes no farther than that. Plus, poor people living off the taxpayer do not need, nor deserve, cel phones, air conditioning, free clothes...etc... fuck them, get off your fat fucking ass and get these luxuries yourself you free-loading sack of whale shit. The ONLY insurance they should get is MAJOR MEDICAL. All else, get it yourself...or don't.

TM looked suspicious. Crimes were being committed in the area. That's why GZ was patrolling. Like a lot of young black males, they want to look all cool, gangster and hard. Not my fault he looked like a gangster. He didn't have to fight with GZ, but he did now didn't he. Plus, he was no little angel. Skittles and all not withstanding, I eat skittles and I'm an asshole. So I just proved Skittles are no reason to presume automatic innosence to any situation.

I disagree that welfare is only about "buying votes," or that it doesn't help people. To give you just the first random example off the top of my head: I got back from my college orientation earlier this morning. During my orientation, the president of the campus spoke to us, and he told us about how he went to college several decades ago. He mentioned that he had gone through financial difficulties shortly out of high school, and that he had been on welfare and food stamps before --- his exact words were, "I was on all of that crap. There's a way out of it, though, if it's important enough to you." This was part of a motivation speech as to why getting an education and learning how to support yourself as a good thing. The moral of the story being that sometimes, people use those programs as stepping stones to get through hard times in their lives, and go on to do much better things. Just because someone collects welfare today, doesn't mean they will in a year. I don't doubt that some people take advantage of it, but to say that doesn't help people is just dishonest.

And setting aside (for the moment) the issue of what constitutes "suspicious": looking suspicious is not a crime. So even if Trayvon DID look suspicious, that's simply not grounds (legal or ethical) to stalk him and instigate armed conflict. Let's get that much cleared up: if not for stand your ground, Zim could very easily have been convicted (at LEAST of manslaughter) on this basis alone.

As for "he didn't have to fight Zimmerman." So what are you supposed to do when you are being stalked by a stranger who is potentially armed? This is a serious question; I keep hearing what Trayvon did wrong, but I never hear what he should have done. If he tried to run, he "looked suspicious," because "why would he run if he wasn't guilty?" If he stayed to fight, "well he started it." It seems like people will judge him harshly no matter what he does, while simultaneously absolving Zim of any (moral) guilt no matter what he could or should have done differently.

"I'm sorry
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."